Wikipedia:Peer review/Gambrinus/archive1

Gambrinus

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to hear ideas for ways to improve its value and interest for readers, and to hear objective criticism about shortcomings to overcome in order to make it a GA.

Thanks, Ringbang (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Being a beer drinker myself, definitely a worthy article. Here are my notes:

Lead section. I'd move the citations in the first paragraph to the end, since they include the information in the second sentence as well. Some of the language in the second paragraph is awkward (look at 2nd and 3rd sentences). Other than those, I think the lead section fits perfectly with the MOS description.
First sentence in the Origin Section, I would change to show it is the creation of the myth, Gambrinus, as it reads now, it appears you are speaking of an historical figure.

In the Brabant section, does his dukedom encompass more than Brussels? I'm new to this, so I am not sure of the standard regarding including non-English verbiage in an English article: should this be translated into English? Or have both the original and a translation? Since you refer to it as an example in the preceding sentence, I think it is important for us non-bilingual folks to understand what the poem is saying. After the poem, your use of "however" ties the two sentences together, but I think you need to expand it slightly to explain the use of "however" (I think I can infer why, but it would be better to be a bit more specific). Also, after the colon, you capitalize a word, which should be lower case.
In the Fearless section, a small thing, but I'd put a comma after "Duke of Burgundy", which would clearly differentiate the clauses. The first paragraph has no citations, and I would be hesitant on using the peacock word, "powerful", unless you include a reference which justifies that word. I like your synthesis of the referenced material in the third paragraph (very good in fact). I might edit the 2nd paragraph, pare it down to a single line, and include it somewhere in the body of the current 3rd paragraph. I think you've over-dabbed a bit in the section. Per MOS guidelines, I think you only need to link the first reference to the County of Flanders. I'd move the citation for Chifflet to the end of the paragraph. You need a citation for the information in the last paragraph.
In the Gambrivius section, not sure you need the "See also" reference. I think if you simply provide a link in the first sentence on "mythical Germanic king" that would suffice. It would be one thing if the cited article had major information on Gambrinus, but it doesn't. The first sentence needs editing, my suggestion would be: Gambrivius, who learned brewing from gods. I actually think you need to re-work that entire first paragraph, it's a bit wordy, and somewhat redundant. In the 3rd paragraph is Gambrinus the wife or husband of Osiris? Also, in this whole section, since we're dealing with Aventinus' book, shouldn't all the referents be to Gambrivius, rather than Gambrinus, except where you are making a comparison? After the poem (which I loved), the second paragraph asserts that assertion "was" contested. Is it still contested, or has the dispute been resolved? The third paragraph has the use of the word "fraudster", but the citation doesn't support this term. I'd either delete the term, or provide a supporting citation. The same with the term "glorious" in the next paragraph, another peacock word without citation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Clarity#Peacock_terms).
I find no issues with the Etymology section. My only thought would be, since you have an entire section on the subject, you might edit out the etymological references in the other subsections, as they might be considered redundant.
On the Cambrinus section, I would move it prior to the Etymology section. Just seems to make more sense there. The synopsis of the story, seems a bit long and convoluted, but for the life of me, I can't see any cuts/edits I'd make. One small issue I have is with the Cambrinus sub-section, while obvious, I think you need a statement tying this into Gambrinus.

The Brand section needs nothing, other than a page needed for the illustration.

Overall, I like the structure you've chosen, leading into sections on each of the potential historical referents, then into etymology, etc. On a purely aesthetic note, imho, I think that captions for the illustrations should be centered. But that's simply a personal preference. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]